Subsequent Petitioner's conviction/ while his case was under direct review, State High-Court held in an unrelated case—Stukes [1]—that the trial courts instructing the jury on State Statute Code § 16-3-657 was unconstitutional, and it's holding is effective in [Petitioner 's] case[ ] on direct review.

Petitioner nor his State-assigned appellate-counsel objected to the new rule of law, however it's application being retroactive.

After four years of unsuccessful exhaustion of State Appellate remedies^ in where town-clerk repeatedly fails to docket Petitioner's Application For Post-Conviction Relief (PCR) and State High-Court exercised discretion not to review the case [2], Petitioner now desires federal review of a constitutional claim seeking immediate Supreme Court review by certiorari:

DID THE RETRIAA COURT HAVE JURISDICTION T0 CONVICT PETITIONER ?

Did the trial court have jurisdiction to convict the petitioner?